On Sat, 2009-07-11 at 11:25 -0400, W. Trevor King wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 11, 2009 at 03:13:05PM +0200, Ronny Pfannschmidt wrote:
> > On Sat, 2009-07-11 at 08:50 -0400, W. Trevor King wrote:
> > > On Sat, Jul 11, 2009 at 01:54:54PM +0200, Ronny Pfannschmidt wrote:
> > > > 1. is there any way to aggregate over multiple public branches in order
> > > > to get the complete bug state
> > > 
> > > Keeping the bug data with the source helps synchronize bug state and
> > > source code.  Bug state in branch A may not apply to branch B.  Some
> > > people like to weaken this source-bug linkage by keeping their bugs in
> > > a branch all by themselves (ditz [http://ditz.rubyforge.org/]
> > > currently supports this workflow).  It sounds like you want to move
> > > from "bugs with code" to "bugs and code in separate branches".  We
> > > don't have an easy way to do that in BE at the moment, since
> > > version-control systems like Git have a single working branch at a
> > > time (I think :p).  What VCS are you using as a backend?
> >
> > the basic idea is to take a look at all public branches (for exaple all
> > on lp/bitbucket/github) in order to tell the user of a webinterface that
> > bug foo is fixed in branch xyz, and if its merged to the main branch
> 
> Hmm.  
> 
> > > > 2. is there any model for storing bigger files at a central place (for
> > > > some of my bugs i have multi-megabyte tarballs attached)
> > > 
> > >   be comment ID "See the tarball at http://yourpage/something.tar.gz"
> > > Then to grab the tarball, you'd use:
> > >   wget `be show COMMENT-ID | sed -n 's/ *See the tarball at //p'`
> > > to grab it.
> > so the basic idea is to do it completely self-managed
> 
> Well, it's going to be managed by somebody ;).  So far I'm not
> convinced enough for the manager to be me, so I'm suggesting it be you
> :p.
> 
> > and have have heterogenous sources of extended data?
> 
> I assume "extended data" here refers to your tarballs.  What sort of
> homogenous source did you have in mind?  The comment body is currently
> just a binary blob for non-text/* types, otherwise it's text in
> whatever encoding you've configured.
some kind of common upload target for a single project in order to have
more reliable sources of stuff thats related to bugs but doesnt fit into
the normal repository


> 
> On Sun, Jul 12, 2009 at 12:57:35AM +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
> > Ronny Pfannschmidt <Ronny.Pfannschmidt@gmx.de> writes:
> > 
> > > i want to see the combination of the bug data of all branches
> > 
> > How is a tool to determine the set of “all branches”? The distributed
> > VCS model means that set is indeterminate.
> 
> He could just make a list of branches he likes.
> 
> Ronny, are you looking to check bug status across several repos on the
> fly, or periodically run something (with cron, etc.) to update a
> static multi-repo summary?
on the fly access

> 
> The easiest implementation I can think of would be to keep local
> branches (on whatever computer is hosting your web interface)
> following your favorite repos.
>   proxectX/
>   |-- repoA
>   |-- repoB
>   `-- repoC
> You'd pull upstream changes with a cron job.
> Listing bugs would be something along the lines of
>   projectX$ for repo in *
>             do
>               pushd $repo
>               be list
> 	      popd
>             done | sort | uniq
> Then to show bug status you would have something like
>   projectX$ for repo in *
>             do
>               echo $repo
>               pushd $repo
>               be show ${BUGID}
>               popd
>             done
> For a web frontend, you'd want to translate that to python/libbe.
> 

yes, the idea is to get a web fontend for multiple branches 
and maybe a local gtk fontend for local multi-branch setups

for some of my projects i have n local and m remote repos, and merging
is not always intended soonish